Petitioner
George T. Middleton, a self-represented state prisoner, filed
this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Â§ 2254. This matter comes before the court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Â§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.)
for a Report and Recommendation on the respondent's
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 10.) Pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
Middleton was advised of the summary judgment and dismissal
procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to
respond adequately to the respondent's motion. (ECF No.
11.) Middleton filed a response in opposition to the
respondent's motion. (ECF No. 25.) Having carefully
considered the parties' submissions and the record in
this case, the court concludes that the respondent's
motion for summary judgment should be granted and
Middleton's Petition denied.

BACKGROUND

Middleton
was indicted in September 2008 in Lexington County for
distribution of crack cocaine (3rd or subsequent offense)
(2008-GS-32-2898). (App. at 502-03, ECF No. 10-3 at 5.)
Middleton was represented by Wayne Floyd, Esquire, and on May
28, 2009 was tried by a jury and found guilty as
charged.[1] (App. at 424-25, ECF No. 10-2 at
175-76.) The circuit court sentenced Middleton to twenty-one
years' imprisonment and a fine of $50, 000. (App. at 436,
ECF No. 10-2 at 187.)

Middleton
timely appealed and was represented by Benjamin Stitley,
Esquire, who filed a brief on Middleton's behalf that
raised the following issues:

I. Did the Trial Court err when it allowed a tainted and
potentially partial jury panel be used in the Appellant's
trial?

II. Did the Trial Court err when it failed to grant the
Appellant's motion for mistrial when the State's
witness deliberately stated that the Appellant had a prior
"booking photo?"

Middleton
filed a pro se application for post-conviction
relief ("PCR") on March 21, 2012 in which he raised
the following allegations of ineffective assistance of
counsel: (1) counsel failed to bring forth issues on seized
items; (2) counsel failed to ask for a continuance to appeal
the issue of the tainted jury panel; and (3) counsel failed
to explain a plea offer or the consequences of a not guilty
plea. (See Middleton v. State of South Carolina,
2012-CP-32-1282; App. at 439-47, ECF No. 10-2 at 190-98.)
Middleton filed an amended application in which he
additionally alleged that "counsel was inaffective when
he failed to object to the states presentation and proffered
a statement regarding the use of cameras in his drive way
stating that such cameras situated proves he is a drug
dealer." (App. at 448-57, ECF No. 10-2 at 199-208)
(errors in original). Middleton again amended his application
on August 21, 2013. (App. at 458-61, ECF No. 10-2 at 209-12.)
The State filed a return. (App. at 462-65, ECF No. 10-2 at
213-16.) On January 21, 2014, the PCR court held an
evidentiary hearing at which Middleton appeared and testified
and was represented by Charles Brooks, Esquire. By order
filed March 13, 2014 the PCR court denied and dismissed with
prejudice Middleton's PCR application. (App. at 493-501,
ECF No. 10-2 at 244-521, ECF No. 10-3 at 3.)

On
appeal, Middleton was represented by Tiffany Butler, Esquire,
with the South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, who
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari that presented the
following issue:

Whether trial counsel erred in failing to make a motion to
exclude and to object to evidence of the video surveillance
system located in Petitioner's residence because this
evidence invited a verdict on the improper basis that
Petitioner was a dangerous drug dealer?

(ECF No. 10-11.) On April 8, 2015, the South Carolina Supreme
Court issued an order denying Middleton's petition for a
writ of certiorari. (ECF No. 10-13.) The remittitur was
issued on April 24, 2015. (ECF No. 10-14.) This action
followed.

FEDERAL
HABEAS ISSUES

Middleton's
federal Petition for a writ of habeas corpus raises the
following issues, quoted verbatim:

Ground One: The state court created a manafest injustice when
it proceeded foward with balance ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.